Using the Robson 10-Group Classification System to Compare Cesarean Birth Utilization Between US Centers With and Without Midwives.

INTRODUCTION: The Robson 10-group classification system stratifies cesarean birth rates using maternal characteristics. Our aim was to compare cesarean birth utilization in US centers with and without midwifery care using the Robson classification. METHODS: We used National Institute of Child and Human Development Consortium on Safe Labor data from 2002 to 2008. Births to women in centers with interprofessional care that included midwives (n = 48,857) were compared with births in non-interprofessional centers (n = 47,935). To compare cesarean utilization, births were classified into the Robson categories. Cesarean birth rates within each category and the contribution to the overall rate were calculated. Maternal demographics, labor and birth outcomes, and neonatal outcomes were described. Logistic regression was used to adjust for maternal comorbidities. RESULTS: Women were less likely to have a cesarean birth (26.1% vs 33.5%, P < .001) in centers with interprofessional care. Nulliparous women with singleton, cephalic, term fetuses (category 2) were less likely to have labor induced (11.1% vs 23.4%, P < .001), and women with a prior uterine scar (category 5) had lower cesarean birth rates (73.8% vs 85.1%, P < .001) in centers with midwives. In centers without midwives, nulliparous women with singleton, cephalic, term fetuses with induction of labor (category 2a) were less likely to have a cesarean birth compared with those in interprofessional care centers in unadjusted comparison (30.3% vs 35.8%, P < .001), but this was reversed after adjustment for maternal comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.32; P < .001). Cesarean birth rates among women at risk for complications (eg, breech) were similar between groups. DISCUSSION: Interprofessional care teams were associated with lower rates of labor induction and overall cesarean utilization as well as higher rates of vaginal birth after cesarean. There was consistency in cesarean rates among women with higher risk for complications.

Preventing Cesarean Birth in Women with Obesity: Influence of Unit-Level Midwifery Presence on Use of Cesarean among Women in the Consortium on Safe Labor Data Set.

INTRODUCTION: Maternal obesity is associated with slow labor progression and unplanned cesarean birth. Midwives use fewer medical interventions during labor, and the women they care for have lower cesarean birth rates, compared with low-risk, matched groups of women cared for by physicians. The primary aim of this study was to examine associations between midwifery unit-level presence and unplanned cesarean birth in women with different body mass index (BMI) ranges. Unit-level presence of midwives was analyzed as a representation of a unique set of care practices that exist in settings where midwives work. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk, healthy women who labored and gave birth in medical centers with (n = 9795) or without (n = 13,398) the unit-level presence of midwives. Regression models were used to evaluate for associations between unit-level midwifery presence and 1) the incidence of unplanned cesarean birth and 2) in-hospital labor durations with stratification by maternal BMI and adjustment for maternal demographic and pregnancy factors. RESULTS: The odds of unplanned cesarean birth among women who gave birth in centers with midwives were 16% lower than the odds of cesarean birth among similar women at who gave birth at centers without midwives (adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93). However, women whose BMI was above 35.00 kg/m2 at labor admission had similar odds of cesarean birth, regardless of unit-level midwifery presence. In-hospital labor duration prior to unplanned cesarean was no different by unit-level midwifery presence in nulliparous women whose BMI was above 35.00 kg/m2 . DISCUSSION: Although integration of midwives into the caregiving environment of medical centers in the United States was associated with overall decrease in the incidence of cesarean birth, increased maternal BMI nevertheless remained positively associated with these outcomes.

Midwifery presence in United States medical centers and labor care and birth outcomes among low-risk nulliparous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study.

BACKGROUND: The presence of midwives in a health system may affect perinatal outcomes but has been inadequately described in United States settings. Our objective was to compare labor processes and outcomes for low-risk nulliparous women birthing in United States medical centers with interprofessional care (midwives and physicians) versus noninterprofessional care (physicians only). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk nulliparous women who birthed in interprofessional (n = 7393) or noninterprofessional centers (n = 6982). Unadjusted, adjusted (age, race, health insurance type), propensity-adjusted, and propensity-matched logistic regression models were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: There was concordance across logistic regression models, the most restrictive and conservative of which were propensity-matched models. With this approach, women at interprofessional medical centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 74% less likely to undergo labor induction (risk ratio [RR] 0.26; 95% CI 0.24-0.29) and 75% less likely to have oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.22-0.29). The cesarean birth rate was 12% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in only 0.3% of births and were thus too rare to be modeled. CONCLUSIONS: The care processes and birth outcomes at interprofessional and noninterprofessional medical centers differed significantly. Nulliparous women receiving care at interprofessional centers were less likely to experience induction, oxytocin augmentation, and cesarean than women at noninterprofessional centers. Labor care and birth outcome differences between interprofessional and noninterprofessional centers may be the result of the presence of midwives and interprofessional collaboration, organizational culture, or both.

Influence of midwifery presence in United States centers on labor care and outcomes of low-risk parous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study.

BACKGROUND: Sixty percent of United States births are to multiparous women. Hospital-level policies and culture may influence intrapartum care and birth outcomes for this large population, yet have been poorly explored using a large, diverse sample. We sought to use national United States data to analyze the association between midwifery presence in maternity care teams and the birth processes and outcomes of low-risk parous women. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk parous women in either interprofessional care (n = 12 125) or noninterprofessional care centers (n = 8996). Unadjusted, adjusted (age, race, health insurance type), propensity-adjusted, and propensity-matched logistic regression models were used to assess processes and outcomes. RESULTS: There was concordance in outcome differences across regression models. With propensity score matching, women at interprofessional centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 85% less likely to have labor induced (risk ratio [RR] 0.15; 95% CI 0.14-0.17). The risk for primary cesarean birth among low-risk parous women was 36% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.64; 95% CI 00.52-0.79), whereas the likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean for this population was 31% higher (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10-1.56). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Parous women have significantly higher rates of vaginal birth, including vaginal birth after cesarean, and lower likelihood of labor induction when cared for in centers with midwives. Our findings are consistent with smaller analyses of midwifery practice and support integrated, team-based models of perinatal care to improve maternal outcomes.

Comparing Different Partograph Designs for Use in Standard Labor Care: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

Backgound Partographs are used in many labour settings to provide a pictorial overview of a woman's cervical dilation pattern in the first stage of labor and to alert clinicians to slow progress possibly requiring intervention. Recent reviews called for large trials to establish the efficacy of partographs to improve birth outcomes whilst highlighting issues of clinician compliance with use. Previous studies have also reported issues with participant recruitment related to concerns regarding the possibility of a longer labour. Objectives We sought to compare a standard partograph with an action line, to a newly designed partograph with a stepped line, to determine the feasibility of recruitment to a larger clinical trial. Methods A pragmatic, single-blind randomised trial wherein low-risk, nulliparous women in spontaneous labour at term were randomized to an action-line or stepped-line partograph. First stage labour management was guided by the allocated partograph. Primary outcomes included the proportion of eligible women recruited, reasons for failed recruitment and compliance with partograph use. Secondary outcomes included rates of intervention, mode of birth, maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results Of the 384 potentially eligible participants, 38% (149/384) were approached. Of these 77% (116/149) consented, with 85% (99/116) randomized, only nine women approached (6%) declined to participate. A further 9% (14/149) who were consented antenatally were not eligible at onset of labor and 7% (10/149) of women approached in the birth suite but did not meet the inclusion criteria. Compliance with partograph completion was 65% (action) versus 84% (dystocia line). Conclusions for Practice Participant recruitment to a larger randomized controlled trial comparing new labour management guidelines to standard care is feasible. Effective strategies to improve partograph completion compliance would be required to maintain trial fidelity.

Pilot Study of Physiologic Partograph Use Among Low-Risk, Nulliparous Women With Spontaneous Labor Onset.

INTRODUCTION: Neal and Lowe developed a physiologic partograph to give clinicians an evidence-based, uniform approach to assessing active labor progress and diagnosing dystocia in high-resource settings. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility of implementing the Neal and Lowe partograph for in-hospital labor assessment. METHODS: A descriptive study of low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset was performed at an academic medical center. Eight certified nurse-midwives from a single practice used the Neal and Lowe partograph for the assessment of labor progress. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics, interventions, and outcomes for women with partograph-assessed labors. Labors assessed by nurse-midwives (n = 83) or obstetricians (n = 75) using their usual assessment strategies were also described for the year prior to partograph introduction to contextualize partograph-assessed labor findings. Inferential statistical tests were not performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 34 (91.2%) partographs were used correctly. Seventy-one percent (n = 22) of these women progressed to complete dilatation within expected physiologic time frames while the remaining women (n = 9) experienced labor dystocia. Similar proportions of women in the partograph and usual labor assessment groups received oxytocin during labor. The cesarean rate was lower in the partograph group than in the usual care groups. No cesareans were performed for dystocia in active labor for women whose labors were assessed via partograph. DISCUSSION: Implementation of the Neal and Lowe partograph for in-hospital labor assessment is feasible. Incorrect plotting and/or interpretation of the partograph may be further minimized by providing clinicians opportunities for ongoing partograph training after implementation or through partograph software development. The Neal and Lowe partograph may assist clinicians in safely and significantly decreasing primary cesarean births performed for active labor dystocia in high-resource settings. Larger scale, hypothesis-testing studies of partograph implementation are now warranted.

Labor Dystocia: Uses of Related Nomenclature.

INTRODUCTION: Labor dystocia (slow or difficult labor or birth) is the most commonly diagnosed aberration of labor and the most frequently documented indication for primary cesarean birth. Yet, dystocia remains a poorly specified diagnostic category, with determinations often varying widely among clinicians. The primary aims of this review are to 1) summarize definitions of active labor and dystocia, as put forth by leading professional obstetric and midwifery organizations in world regions wherein English is the majority language and 2) describe the use of dystocia and related terms in contemporary research studies. METHODS: Major national midwifery and obstetric organizations from qualifying United Nations-member sovereign nations and international organizations were searched to identify guidelines providing definitions of active labor and dystocia or related terms. Research studies (2000-2013) were systematically identified via PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL searches to describe the use of dystocia and related terms in contemporary scientific publications. RESULTS: Only 6 organizational guidelines defined dystocia or related terms. Few research teams (n = 25 publications) defined dystocia-related terms with nonambiguous clinical parameters that can be applied prospectively. There is heterogeneity in the nomenclature used to describe dystocia, and when a similar term is shared between guidelines or research publications, the underlying definition of that term is sometimes inconsistent between documents. DISCUSSION: Failure to define dystocia in evidence-based, well-described, clinically meaningful terms that are widely acceptable to and reproducible among clinicians and researchers is concerning at both national and global levels. This failure is particularly problematic in light of the major contribution of this diagnosis to primary cesarean birth rates.

Phosphate recovery using hybrid anion exchange: applications to source-separated urine and combined wastewater streams.

There is increasing interest in recovering phosphorus (P) from various wastewater streams for beneficial use as fertilizer and to minimize environmental impacts of excess P on receiving waters. One such example is P recovery from human urine, which has a high concentration of phosphate (200-800 mg P/L) and accounts for a small volume (≈ 1%) of total wastewater flow. Accordingly, the goal of this study was to evaluate the potential to recover P from source-separated and combined wastewater streams that included undiluted human urine, urine diluted with tap water, greywater, mixture of urine and greywater, anaerobic digester supernatant, and secondary wastewater effluent. A hybrid anion exchange (HAIX) resin containing hydrous ferric oxide was used to recover P because of its selectivity for phosphate and the option to precipitate P minerals in the waste regeneration solution. The P recovery potential was fresh urine > hydrolyzed urine > greywater > biological wastewater effluent > anaerobic digester supernatant. The maximum loading of P on HAIX resin was fresh urine > hydrolyzed urine > anaerobic digester supernatant ≈ greywater > biological wastewater effluent. Results indicated that the sorption capacity of HAIX resin for phosphate and the total P recovery potential were greater for source-separated urine than the combined wastewater streams of secondary wastewater effluent and anaerobic digester supernatant. Dilution of urine with tap water decreased the phosphate loading on HAIX resin. The results of this work advance the current understanding of nutrient recovery from complex wastewater streams by sorption processes.